sportsbet_results_competitions

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, and open-world hints. The description adds the return structure and explicit 'Auth: none needed,' but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination, empty response behavior, or potential data volume. It provides some value beyond annotations but not extensive context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is exceptionally concise and well-structured, with a clear purpose line, a compact return format, and an auth note. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or misleading content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, return shape, and auth. It lacks usage guidance and does not explain the concept of 'sport class' or direct the agent to related tools, but combined with annotations and schema it is reasonably complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters (classId and date) are fully documented in the schema. The description does not add extra semantics beyond what the schema already explains; the return structure hints at their purpose but does not clarify formats or constraints further.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the resource (competitions), the filtering criteria (sport class, date), and the output (results). It is specific enough to distinguish from event-level results tools, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get' and does not directly contrast with sibling tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or suitable scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and description alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.